Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Camera Rumors and Predictions
Thread started 25 Dec 2014 (Thursday) 10:15
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

DSLR soon obsolete

 
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,280 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Jan 29, 2015 20:58 |  #256

Shadowblade wrote in post #17406389external link
It's telling me that at 400mm, f/4 and 100', the total DOF of 'acceptable' sharpness is 4.8' using manufacturer spec, or 1.6' using 20/20 vision.

:oops: I thought I had set the calculator to 20/20 when I previously said DOF zone was 4.8'
doh


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
smythie
I wasn't even trying
Joined Jun 2009
Sydney - Australia
Jan 29, 2015 22:03 |  #257

Shadowblade wrote in post #17406389external link
It's telling me that at 400mm, f/4 and 100', the total DOF of 'acceptable' sharpness is 4.8' using manufacturer spec, or 1.6' using 20/20 vision.

That implies that, at 0.8' out-of-focus, detail is only just acceptable - you'll see the eye, but won't see much detail in it (e.g. individual eyelashes). Probably OK for a small print, but not really acceptable if you're going to blow it up large. You'd want to focus more accurately than that.

There's a better calculator here, which lets you use an absolute circle of confusion, rather than viewing distance/print size and guessing:

http://www.tawbaware.c​om/maxlyons/calc.htmexternal link

I'm pretty sure 0.8' means 0.8 feet (24cm), not 0.8 inches


Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2008
Melbourne, Australia
Jan 29, 2015 22:33 |  #258

smythie wrote in post #17406565external link
I'm pretty sure 0.8' means 0.8 feet (24cm), not 0.8 inches

I know. But what's relevant isn't whether it's 0.8' or 0.8" (which it would be at a closer distance), but that it represents a CoC of 10 microns. On a high-resolution sensor or a large print, 10 microns out represents the limit of acceptable sharpness - you can see the feature, but not fine, pixel-level details within that feature (which would have been missed by 35mm film or a lower-resolution sensor anyway). For fine detail, you need to land in the middle of that 10 micron range, not on the edges.

Trouble is, with an OVF, you can't really tell if you're spot-on or 10 microns out (in terms of CoC). You can see when you're roughly in focus, but not whether the AF (or your manual focusing) landed you spot-on or at the edge of the 10-micron limit. And it's even harder with shorter or narrower-aperture lenses, since the ramp-off from peak sharpness is much more gradual. Focus peaking gets you much closer, and zooming in gets you closer still.




LOG IN TO REPLY
benji25
Senior Member
benji25's Avatar
Joined Jan 2010
Twin Cities
Jan 29, 2015 23:02 as a reply to Shadowblade's post |  #259

I think if we are measuring the difference in microns then it is nowhere near obsolete.


Websiteexternal link
flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2008
Melbourne, Australia
Jan 29, 2015 23:06 |  #260

benji25 wrote in post #17406632external link
I think if we are measuring the difference in microns then it is nowhere near obsolete.

It's always been measured in microns. We're talking about blur circles on the sensor here, which are magnified in the same way as the entire image when printing to output size. On a 36MP sensor, a 30-micron circle of confusion (what industry regards as 'acceptably sharp', based on the resolution on colour film and small print size) comes out to a blur 7 pixels across - hardly 'critically sharp'.




LOG IN TO REPLY
benji25
Senior Member
benji25's Avatar
Joined Jan 2010
Twin Cities
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by benji25.
Jan 29, 2015 23:54 |  #261

Shadowblade wrote in post #17406636external link
It's always been measured in microns. We're talking about blur circles on the sensor here, which are magnified in the same way as the entire image when printing to output size. On a 36MP sensor, a 30-micron circle of confusion (what industry regards as 'acceptably sharp', based on the resolution on colour film and small print size) comes out to a blur 7 pixels across - hardly 'critically sharp'.

Great. Much the same way the iMac with retina display that has better resolution does not make my non-retina iMac obsolete. You guys are measuring such small differences that clearly neither technology is soon to be obsolete.

When there is something that is similarly any of the following better DSLR will be obsolete:
-Cellphone v landline
- Auto v. manual transmition
- typewriter v pen


You guys are arguing about minute details/features that clearly are inconsequential for all practical purposes.


Websiteexternal link
flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2008
Melbourne, Australia
Jan 30, 2015 00:10 |  #262

benji25 wrote in post #17406678external link
Great. Much the same way the iMac with retina display that has better resolution does not make my non-retina iMac obsolete. You guys are measuring such small differences that clearly neither technology is soon to be obsolete.

When there is something that is similarly any of the following better DSLR will be obsolete:
-Cellphone v landline
- Auto v. manual transmition
- typewriter v pen

You guys are arguing about minute details/features that clearly are inconsequential for all practical purposes.

Inconsequential for you, maybe. Or for anyone who doesn't print larger than an 8x10. A 6MP image focused to within 20 microns would do for that.

I commonly print single frames at 40x60", or panoramas at 32x96". People view them up close - fine detail and exact focus matters. I bought a high-resolution body to use those megapixels and capture those details, not to waste them on blurred pixels.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
sandpiper's Avatar
7,170 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2006
Merseyside, England
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by sandpiper.
Jan 30, 2015 07:20 |  #263

Shadowblade wrote in post #17406689external link
Inconsequential for you, maybe. Or for anyone who doesn't print larger than an 8x10. A 6MP image focused to within 20 microns would do for that.

I commonly print single frames at 40x60", or panoramas at 32x96". People view them up close - fine detail and exact focus matters. I bought a high-resolution body to use those megapixels and capture those details, not to waste them on blurred pixels.

Then I am sure that mirrorless is ideal for you, and maybe a DSLR is not "good enough". However, to use that as an argument for the DSLR to become obsolete is ridiculous, how many DSLR users are going to print that large, 0.0001% perhaps, probably much fewer even than that. I print to 24x36 and get great results with a DSLR, sharp and focused where I want them to be. So, why would I choose to switch to a mirrorless system to enable me to print 5 foot wide prints, when (like the vast majority of DSLR users) I am never going to need a print that large? As Benji25 says, it is inconsequential (in so far as being the end of DSLRs) as it affects so few potential purchasers.

I have nothing against mirrorless and I am sure that it is much better than a DSLR for some people, such as yourself. However, that does not mean that others don't find a DSLR more suited to their needs. Yes, technology marches on and everything we currently use will one day be a museum piece, DSLRs will one day disappear, but there are a good many reasons (for some of us) to go on using them for a long time to come.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,280 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Post has been last edited over 2 years ago by Wilt. 4 edits done in total.
Jan 30, 2015 08:58 |  #264

Charlie wrote in post #17404809external link
evf delay is very small : https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=lZqV7TTwtlUexternal link, dont think it would make or break anything TBH. there's probably more lag with the shutter than actual evf lag. A7 shutter is 60ms, while A7r is 120ms. I'm sure these can be solved digitally.

Viewfinder lag is not the same as shutter lag in its effect!

The issue is ability to accurately track your subject in the viewfinder, analogous to tracking a fast running small game animal in a rifle scope...if the view presented is delayed, where your gun is aimed is not where the game truly is necessarily located...the rifle might be aimed were the game USED TO BE when you see the target in the electronic rifle scope. Viewfinder lag imposes error in the view presented, so your 'gun' or camera can be misaimed, when tracking a rapidly moving target. One can see the effect by putting the dSLR in Live View and panning back and forth (left-to-right, then right-to-left- then left -to-right) very rapidly...the camera may be moving in the opposite direction already, but the Live View still shows it moving left-to-right, for example.

Shutter lag is the delay in the time from when you press shutter button until the time the shot is actually recorded...if your aim is correct (due to realtime optical system rather than delayed electronic one), your aim is correct and what you need to do is simply continue to pan the gun (camera) after you press shutter button and your aim remains accurate (ignoring a changing in speed/direction of your target). Of course, in the case of a rifle you have delay in bullet travel to the target -- which is not compensated once it leaves the barrel -- so you have to lead the target appropriately, whereas photons get from the subject to the camera sensor with virtually no delay.

It would be interesting to hear about view delay from recent military service vets who have combat experience with the night vision scopes, where the light has to be amplified and then presented on a viewscreen, and see what the official instructional doctrine taught about the pitfalls of these scopes relative to target tracking (when the target is relatively close so that bullet travel time and windage compensation is insignificant).


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,280 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Post has been last edited over 2 years ago by Wilt. 5 edits done in total.
Jan 30, 2015 09:00 |  #265

Shadowblade wrote in post #17404938external link
Which still isn't as precise as focus peaking, and doesn't really work when you're shooting wildlife with long lenses, which are often f/5.6 wide open by the time you've put teleconverters on them and, therefore, extremely dark with the precision screen.

With an EVF and focus peaking, I can see instantly whether the AF has hit its mark. With an OVF, even with a precision screen, I'm usually struggling to tell if it's hit or is slightly off.

Not talking about manual focus here - the EVF's ability to zoom in makes that no contest.

mystik610 wrote:
At its most sensitive settting, the focus peaking system will refine the focus down to your subjects eyeballs.

I am curious about what characteristic(s) makes EVF focus peaking better (or any different) from the AF confirmation blink in the dSLR viewfinder?


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
mystik610's Avatar
Joined Jan 2012
Houston, TX
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by mystik610.
Jan 30, 2015 09:38 |  #266

Wilt wrote in post #17407021external link
I am curious about what characteristic(s) makes EVF focus peaking better (or any different) from the AF confirmation blink in the dSLR viewfinder?

Two things:

Miscalibration between the mirror and sensor in a DSLR.

Greater accuracy of contrast detect focus system vs the phase detect focus systems utilized in DSLR's.

There's a reason why people here are so obsessed with MFA....phase detect AF via the mirror is inherently problematic if your concern is accurate focus at a very shallow DOF


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀII - RX1ʀII - α7ʀIII
Zeiss Loxia 21 - Canon 24-70 2.8LII - Sony/Zeiss 35 f1.4 ZA - 85GM - Sigma 135 f1.8 ART - Sony 70-200GM

LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,280 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Post has been last edited over 2 years ago by Wilt. 2 edits done in total.
Jan 30, 2015 09:44 |  #267

mystik610 wrote in post #17407062external link
Two things:

Miscalibration between the mirror and sensor in a DSLR.

Greater accuracy of contrast detect focus system vs the phase detect focus systems utilized in DSLR's.

There's a reason why people here are so obsessed with MFA....phase detect AF via the mirror is inherently problematic if your concern is accurate focus at a very shallow DOF

Then please, would you address this point...

"contrast-detect can be more accurate than phase-detect, but it is just slower ... manufacturers are making contrast-detect faster and faster, but it is still not fast-enough for action "


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
mystik610's Avatar
Joined Jan 2012
Houston, TX
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by mystik610.
Jan 30, 2015 10:00 |  #268

Wilt wrote in post #17407067external link
Then please, would you address this point...

"contrast-detect can be more accurate than phase-detect, but it is just slower ... manufacturers are making contrast-detect faster and faster, but it is still not fast-enough for action "

Contrast detect is a software driven solution that involves an analysis of the digital image to find the area of peak contrast within a given point. It's limited by the processing speed of the cameras processor (which we can presume will improve year over year as processors always do)

The solution to that in terms of mirrorless cameras is the building of phase detect AF sensors directly into the image sensor...so you get the speed of a DSLR, without the mirror calibration issues. Most mirrorless cameras released within the past 2 years have phase detect AF systems.


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀII - RX1ʀII - α7ʀIII
Zeiss Loxia 21 - Canon 24-70 2.8LII - Sony/Zeiss 35 f1.4 ZA - 85GM - Sigma 135 f1.8 ART - Sony 70-200GM

LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
David Arbogast's Avatar
10,139 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Joined Aug 2010
West Point, Georgia
Jan 30, 2015 10:01 |  #269

Focus peaking is superior to an AF confirm light because peaking offers the user more feedback. The AF confirm light merely provides feedback that the plane of focus has coincidentally aligned with the desired focal point. By contrast, focus peaking provides continual visual feedback as to where the plane of focus is at all times - irregardless of position. Also, when using a tilt-shift lens with peaking you get a visual of how the focal plane tilts - something an AF confirm light can never do. Finally, peaking can just be one component to the manual-focusing process: an EVF with peaking can also be zoomed in (10x) to make even more precise focal adjustments. That is typically my workflow: 1. focus generally with peaking, and if needed, 2. magnify the view for final extreme-precision focus adjustments. OVF's don't support zooming.

The AF confirm light is somewhat like driving in a car with all the windows blacked out, but with a "you're still on the road" confirm light for feedback. That is, of course, a ridiculous exaggeration, and I am not suggesting that the AF confirm light is that bad. But, my intention is simply to use the exaggeration as a means of articulating that the visual feedback that focus peaking can provide makes for a better overall manual focus experience.

From my experience, focus peaking and the DSLR's AF confirm light provide a similar level of precision, which in some cases (focusing near the MFD @ f/1.4) is not nearly precise enough. That's why I frequently prefer to zoom into the EVF (10x).


David | Flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,280 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Post has been last edited over 2 years ago by Wilt. 2 edits done in total.
Jan 30, 2015 10:21 |  #270

mystik610 wrote in post #17407088external link
Contrast detect is ...limited by the processing speed of the cameras processor (which we can presume will improve year over year as processors always do)

The solution to that in terms of mirrorless cameras is the building of phase detect AF sensors directly into the image sensor...so you get the speed of a DSLR, without the mirror calibration issues. Most mirrorless cameras released within the past 2 years have phase detect AF systems.

David Arbogast wrote in post #17407090external link
From my experience, focus peaking and the DSLR's AF confirm light provide a similar level of precision, which in some cases (focusing near the MFD @ f/1.4) is not nearly precise enough. That's why I frequently prefer to zoom into the EVF (10x).

Thx for the explanation mystik610 and David. It sounds like David's last paragraph summarizes it well...IF you can magnify (and sports shooters cannot do so) EVF can provide some advantages.
But action shooters (and BIF shooters) do not get the advantage of increased focus precision, and viewfinder lag is something that could be (but is not necessarily) sufficiently addressed at present to 'obsolete dSLRs' yet.

The question remains, When is 'soon'?


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

40,668 views & 12 likes for this thread
DSLR soon obsolete
FORUMS News & Rumors Camera Rumors and Predictions


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00289 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is xeunskate
773 guests, 302 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017